Group: Members
Posts: 24,508
Joined: 23-August 13
From: The North
Member No.: 44,432

More good news, more experts grudgingly admit they got it wrong...

Independent economic forecaster the Item Club – sponsored by City professional services giant EY – today reports a headline prediction of 1.8% GDP growth for 2017. This is well up on even the 1.3% prediction it made last October. And it is incredibly well up on its post-referendum forecast…

The Item Club sent shock-waves through the City last summer when it downgraded its forecast for 2017 GDP growth to an absolutely dismal 0.4% after the Brexit vote. This prediction of dread set much of the business media agenda: the Item Club is taken seriously because it uses the same economic models as the Treasury. Between July 2016 and today the Item Club has revised up its forecast by an eye-popping 1.4%…

Peter Spencer, chief economic advisor to the Item Club, said today:

“Although the starting gun for Brexit has just been fired, the UK economy has been adjusting to life outside the EU since the referendum…”

Unfortunately, I was out of the UK when the Referendum vote took place. My area of the UK (Stoke) voted strongly to exit the European Union (not Europe) and personally I would have also added my vote to that number. The losers should get over it and get on with life. No point belly aching!

Group: Members
Posts: 24,508
Joined: 23-August 13
From: The North
Member No.: 44,432

Now it's the IMF's turn to admit they were hopelessly wrong...

Britain's economy will grow at a much faster rate than previously predicted, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The IMF, a global organisation focused on economic stability, said the UK's economy will grow by 2% in 2017 and by 1.5% in the following year.

Just three months ago, the IMF predicted growth of 1.5% this year, and 1.4% the year after.

While the forecast growth for many economies has been increased slightly, the 0.5% rise in predicted UK growth this year is striking - it is, by far, the biggest change made in any of the IMF's forecasts.

In October 2016, the same organisation said it thought the UK economy would expand by just 0.9% in 2017 - six months later, that predicted growth rate has doubled. (Sky News Tuesday 18 April 2017)

Britain's economy will grow at a much faster rate than previously predicted, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The IMF, a global organisation focused on economic stability, said the UK's economy will grow by 2% in 2017 and by 1.5% in the following year.

Just three months ago, the IMF predicted growth of 1.5% this year, and 1.4% the year after.

While the forecast growth for many economies has been increased slightly, the 0.5% rise in predicted UK growth this year is striking - it is, by far, the biggest change made in any of the IMF's forecasts.

In October 2016, the same organisation said it thought the UK economy would expand by just 0.9% in 2017 - six months later, that predicted growth rate has doubled. (Sky News Tuesday 18 April 2017)

All just predictions and opinions. Let's not forget the predictions pre-GFC.

I follow cycles. We're due a recession this year or next. They happen like clockwork, and they usually happen when everyone thinks things are going great.

Group: Members
Posts: 24,508
Joined: 23-August 13
From: The North
Member No.: 44,432

QUOTE (vsberlina @ Apr 19 2017, 01:16 AM)

All just predictions and opinions. Let's not forget the predictions pre-GFC.

I follow cycles. We're due a recession this year or next. They happen like clockwork, and they usually happen when everyone thinks things are going great.

Project Fear was real, it was orchestrated by The Establishment to bully the British public into voting to remain a member of the (utterly hopeless) EU. One of the most striking examples was when we were told 'you wouldn't ignore your doctor's advice so why dismiss the economic experts?'. The fact that all these 'respected experts' wheeled out have been proved wrong, and all have had to back-peddle massively cannot simply be put down to errors. The margins are too great, too striking, there can only be one conclusion.The 'experts' deliberately peddled the least optimistic estimates and kept quiet on more positive scenarios in an attempt to frighten the public into voting Remain. Sadly many of the villains that orchestrated this treachery - talking down the economy for political gain - remain in high position, Mark Carney is still Governor of The Bank of England and should have been one of the first be sacked with George Osborne.

Project Fear was real, it was orchestrated by The Establishment to bully the British public into voting to remain a member of the (utterly hopeless) EU. One of the most striking examples was when we were told 'you wouldn't ignore your doctor's advice so why dismiss the economic experts?'. The fact that all these 'respected experts' wheeled out have been proved wrong, and all have had to back-peddle massively cannot simply be put down to errors. The margins are too great, too striking, there can only be one conclusion.The 'experts' deliberately peddled the least optimistic estimates and kept quiet on more positive scenarios in an attempt to frighten the public into voting Remain. Sadly many of the villains that orchestrated this treachery - talking down the economy for political gain - remain in high position, Mark Carney is still Governor of The Bank of England and should have been one of the first be sacked with George Osborne.

Ummm. Yeah - I'm incapable of resisting (something about spending 4 days working on technical documentation makes me incapable of resisting the urge to rant).

The evidence is debatable on all sides as to the various effects of policy decisions on the economy.

I'm (far) less familiar with UK politics, but here in Trumpland, we've recently revisited the "illegal immigrants in the economy" debate, particularly as it relates to wages. The linked article states (and includes more links to supporting evidence for the statement), "Most economists firmly reject the notion that “immigrants are taking our jobs.” By providing new customers as well as new workers, immigration increases income and employment opportunities for native-born workers, leaving everyone better off on average. But the key phrase there is “on average.” There is much less agreement among economists about how low-skilled immigration affects the wages of low-skilled workers. And it is almost certain that some individual American workers are worse off because of competition from immigrants."

So, even with something as old as "outsiders arrive in my community," we aren't very certain of the economic effects, especially in light of the difference between macroeconomic growth (increased opportunity for native-born workers) and microeconomic problems (affecting the wages of low-skilled workers). Ignoring such differences can, literally, be deadly (see: Diaz, Porfirio, dictator, Mexico, "... thus generated a stark contrast between rapid economic growth and sudden, severe impoverishment of the rural masses, a situation that was to explode in the Mexican revolution of 1910").

But the political rhetoric is clear: either you are for immigration (economic growth and globalization) or against it (remove obstacles to wage growth). The political choice is binary: Build That Wall or No Walls At All. The underlying reality is far muddier.

We should be careful not to allow ourselves to believe in a false clarity, but to wade, carefully, into those murkier waters, in an effort to see what really needs doing.

With regards to Brexit, we should also mention that the only thing to actually happen is the beginning of the negotiation clock. We don't know (because we can't predict with that much certainty) what will happen to the UK and EU economies post-Brexit (because, you know, we aren't in a post-Brexit world).

At this point, the changing of the previous predictions is just that: a change to a prediction. We don't really know why a prediction changed (well, someone probably does, but this thread/discussion does not have that evidence, despite a clear need for it, as I point out below). It is possible that the post-2008 global recession recovery is moving faster than previous predictions, so we changed our prediction. Assigning a known cause to these prediction changes (and worse, in my opinion, blame a person for propaganda or bias, when we have never had enough evidence to state categorically we know the effects of policy on the economy) is to conclude first, then point to evidence, rather than use evidence to build a convincing case for a conclusion. Cart before horse or something like that. Not recognizing the mud in the water, too.

Put another way, you stated, "The margins are too great, too striking." How do you know they are too large? What's your statistical analysis of the margin of error? Where is your detailed discussion of the experimental design and subsequent modification that led to the changed predictions? Why is "deliberately peddled the least optimistic estimates" the only conclusion, when we must remember Hanlon's Razor, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"?

It's possible Brexit won't have dire economic consequences predicted; it's also possible those predictions are not as dire as the eventual outcome (margins of error occur on both sides of a predicted data point).

Me? I'm a raging capitalist, with concomitant belief in free trade, immigration as an element of a labor market and economic interdependence as the best foreign policy (put simply: it's easier to keep the peace and trade with me than it is to fight with me but "control" more of your own stuff). I think the very real questions raised by recent politicians, be it Brexit, Trump or others, all require some form of answer. And those questions include what we can, and should, be doing as a matter of policy, to help ameliorate the real issues for lower-skilled workers within the framework of advancing globalization. Should we improve the global social safety net? Are there ways to build better economies in countries with net emigration, lowering the microeconomic costs in countries with net immigration? Can we, as a matter of policy, ensure a "fair" distribution of wealth (yes, those quotes are deliberate, but post-Age of Reason history teaches us that concentration of power & resources in the hands of too few leads to revolution).

Or, you could just conclude the world works the way you think it does (last thing to remember: we are, all of us, human; so we are, all of us, wrong about something) and proceed from there.

Woe betide she who finds her own humanity only after achieving great heights, for therein lies a great fall.

--------------------

I used to stay out late and try to walk the Muse home. Now I get up fresh-faced at 7 a.m. and take advantage of her while she's passing out.-Bono

Group: Members
Posts: 24,508
Joined: 23-August 13
From: The North
Member No.: 44,432

QUOTE (scoobyliscious @ Apr 24 2017, 08:35 PM)

Ummm. Yeah - I'm incapable of resisting (something about spending 4 days working on technical documentation makes me incapable of resisting the urge to rant).

The evidence is debatable on all sides as to the various effects of policy decisions on the economy.

I'm (far) less familiar with UK politics, but here in Trumpland, we've recently revisited the "illegal immigrants in the economy" debate, particularly as it relates to wages. The linked article states (and includes more links to supporting evidence for the statement), "Most economists firmly reject the notion that “immigrants are taking our jobs.” By providing new customers as well as new workers, immigration increases income and employment opportunities for native-born workers, leaving everyone better off on average. But the key phrase there is “on average.” There is much less agreement among economists about how low-skilled immigration affects the wages of low-skilled workers. And it is almost certain that some individual American workers are worse off because of competition from immigrants."

So, even with something as old as "outsiders arrive in my community," we aren't very certain of the economic effects, especially in light of the difference between macroeconomic growth (increased opportunity for native-born workers) and microeconomic problems (affecting the wages of low-skilled workers). Ignoring such differences can, literally, be deadly (see: Diaz, Porfirio, dictator, Mexico, "... thus generated a stark contrast between rapid economic growth and sudden, severe impoverishment of the rural masses, a situation that was to explode in the Mexican revolution of 1910").

But the political rhetoric is clear: either you are for immigration (economic growth and globalization) or against it (remove obstacles to wage growth). The political choice is binary: Build That Wall or No Walls At All. The underlying reality is far muddier.

We should be careful not to allow ourselves to believe in a false clarity, but to wade, carefully, into those murkier waters, in an effort to see what really needs doing.

With regards to Brexit, we should also mention that the only thing to actually happen is the beginning of the negotiation clock. We don't know (because we can't predict with that much certainty) what will happen to the UK and EU economies post-Brexit (because, you know, we aren't in a post-Brexit world).

At this point, the changing of the previous predictions is just that: a change to a prediction. We don't really know why a prediction changed (well, someone probably does, but this thread/discussion does not have that evidence, despite a clear need for it, as I point out below). It is possible that the post-2008 global recession recovery is moving faster than previous predictions, so we changed our prediction. Assigning a known cause to these prediction changes (and worse, in my opinion, blame a person for propaganda or bias, when we have never had enough evidence to state categorically we know the effects of policy on the economy) is to conclude first, then point to evidence, rather than use evidence to build a convincing case for a conclusion. Cart before horse or something like that. Not recognizing the mud in the water, too.

Put another way, you stated, "The margins are too great, too striking." How do you know they are too large? What's your statistical analysis of the margin of error? Where is your detailed discussion of the experimental design and subsequent modification that led to the changed predictions? Why is "deliberately peddled the least optimistic estimates" the only conclusion, when we must remember Hanlon's Razor, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"?

It's possible Brexit won't have dire economic consequences predicted; it's also possible those predictions are not as dire as the eventual outcome (margins of error occur on both sides of a predicted data point).

Me? I'm a raging capitalist, with concomitant belief in free trade, immigration as an element of a labor market and economic interdependence as the best foreign policy (put simply: it's easier to keep the peace and trade with me than it is to fight with me but "control" more of your own stuff). I think the very real questions raised by recent politicians, be it Brexit, Trump or others, all require some form of answer. And those questions include what we can, and should, be doing as a matter of policy, to help ameliorate the real issues for lower-skilled workers within the framework of advancing globalization. Should we improve the global social safety net? Are there ways to build better economies in countries with net emigration, lowering the microeconomic costs in countries with net immigration? Can we, as a matter of policy, ensure a "fair" distribution of wealth (yes, those quotes are deliberate, but post-Age of Reason history teaches us that concentration of power & resources in the hands of too few leads to revolution).

Or, you could just conclude the world works the way you think it does (last thing to remember: we are, all of us, human; so we are, all of us, wrong about something) and proceed from there.

Woe betide she who finds her own humanity only after achieving great heights, for therein lies a great fall.

I think I have been quite clear on the crux of my recent posts but I'll clarify, just to be crystal clear. The period I refer to is predictions made for 2016 and 2017, ie not post-Brexit but post-referendum, pre-Brexit. I contend that key world & national economic bodies colluded to paint an overly pessimistic picture of this period in a crass attempt to frighten the British people into voting remain. Politicians then seized upon these dire warnings and we got "if your doctor gave you advice about a serious medical problem you wouldn't ignore it would you?"Clearly the economic experts had a range of estimated probabilities & outcomes based on inputs because they said so at the time. A striking example of all this was laid bare the day after the referendum when instead of the promised punishment Budget from Osborne, Carney simply turned the QE taps on again as the pound plummeted and markets tanked. This BoE tactic was obviously planned and there was no emergency/punishment budget and stock markets recovered and Sterling settled - volatility reduced. Osborne had lied and Carney had colluded with him. As for your central theme of globalisation and protectionism? For many this was not about wages and immigration, it was about getting out of a pernicious political mission-creep (of a once simple trading block!) that we never fully embraced. I remain optimistic that The Remoaners will be proved wrong in good time and that the UK will prosper and grow much better outside the EU, and set an example for others to follow. The EU will try to punish UK to prevent others having the temerity to leave as is their wont. The economic horizon medium-term is far from clear due to uncertainty but hopefully experts colluding to paint an overtly gloomy picture for crass political ends will become a thing of the past and a more measured approach to these things develops as we prepare to leave.

I remain optimistic that The Remoaners will be proved wrong in good time and that the UK will prosper and grow much better outside the EU, and set an example for others to follow. The EU will try to punish UK to prevent others having the temerity to leave as is their wont. The economic horizon medium-term is far from clear due to uncertainty but hopefully experts colluding to paint an overtly gloomy picture for crass political ends will become a thing of the past and a more measured approach to these things develops as we prepare to leave.

I would hope that all Brits, no matter how they voted, wish for a prosperous future.

I really haven't been paying attention...have other nations expressed a (official/public or otherwise) desire to leave the EU? I have no doubt that one or two are watching how the UK gets on before officially making plans to jump ship. Might be a decade or so, but it will happen.

I think I have been quite clear on the crux of my recent posts but I'll clarify, just to be crystal clear. The period I refer to is predictions made for 2016 and 2017, ie not post-Brexit but post-referendum, pre-Brexit. I contend that key world & national economic bodies colluded to paint an overly pessimistic picture of this period in a crass attempt to frighten the British people into voting remain. Politicians then seized upon these dire warnings and we got "if your doctor gave you advice about a serious medical problem you wouldn't ignore it would you?"Clearly the economic experts had a range of estimated probabilities & outcomes based on inputs because they said so at the time. A striking example of all this was laid bare the day after the referendum when instead of the promised punishment Budget from Osborne, Carney simply turned the QE taps on again as the pound plummeted and markets tanked. This BoE tactic was obviously planned and there was no emergency/punishment budget and stock markets recovered and Sterling settled - volatility reduced. Osborne had lied and Carney had colluded with him. As for your central theme of globalisation and protectionism? For many this was not about wages and immigration, it was about getting out of a pernicious political mission-creep (of a once simple trading block!) that we never fully embraced. I remain optimistic that The Remoaners will be proved wrong in good time and that the UK will prosper and grow much better outside the EU, and set an example for others to follow. The EU will try to punish UK to prevent others having the temerity to leave as is their wont. The economic horizon medium-term is far from clear due to uncertainty but hopefully experts colluding to paint an overtly gloomy picture for crass political ends will become a thing of the past and a more measured approach to these things develops as we prepare to leave.

I have to say I think you're looking for nefariousness. Incompetence is both more pernicious and more common. Or, perhaps it isn't incompetence, but short-sighted self-preservation. After all, marching toward a more global economy is clearly beneficial for those members of the economic upper class; precisely the people producing your reports (btw: please link, so we can all have the underlying data). Bias exists, consciously or otherwise, so naturally such people will shade interpretation of data one way or another. It isn't crass; merely human.

Lastly, to move in a different direction: I've been contemplating the parallels between the present-day EU and a post-Revolution-but-pre-Constitution United States (under the Articles of Confederation). In both cases, the government structures were explicitly created to maintain the sovereignty of member states, necessarily limiting the power and reach of the centralized government (or, in the case of the EU, government-like structures).

To my view, at least, an understanding of why these structures lacked cohesion (in the case of the US, it was an inability to collect taxes and pay for a central government as well as the lack of effective executive and judicial structures within the central government) would help inform better structures for the future.

I have to admit that a well-integrated European economy is first on my list of "threats" to American economic hegemony (yes, above China, at least for now), so I'm curious as to any thoughts for why a European citizen would want to remain separated, rather than more tightly integrated.

--------------------

I used to stay out late and try to walk the Muse home. Now I get up fresh-faced at 7 a.m. and take advantage of her while she's passing out.-Bono

Group: Members
Posts: 24,508
Joined: 23-August 13
From: The North
Member No.: 44,432

QUOTE (PTC @ Apr 25 2017, 07:26 PM)

I would hope that all Brits, no matter how they voted, wish for a prosperous future.

I really haven't been paying attention...have other nations expressed a (official/public or otherwise) desire to leave the EU? I have no doubt that one or two are watching how the UK gets on before officially making plans to jump ship. Might be a decade or so, but it will happen.

I fear some wish for a less than prosperous outcome.

Yes there are those who would wish to leave EU but are not in a position currently to table a referendum. There are certainly powerful voices within the EU that are urging other countries not to hold referendums, well they would wouldn't they?

He's been with us for yearsThrough the lower leaguesPlaying as wing-backIt's our mighty Matt

Oooooh Matt DohertyOld-gold propertyAlways has been trueWanderers' number 2★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★“RAPID scores goals like Marco van Basten”(PTC)“RAPID is the Magical Negro whose special powers make us all better at Fantasy Footie”(scoobyliscious)

Group: Members
Posts: 24,508
Joined: 23-August 13
From: The North
Member No.: 44,432

QUOTE (scoobyliscious @ Apr 25 2017, 10:40 PM)

I have to say I think you're looking for nefariousness. Incompetence is both more pernicious and more common. Or, perhaps it isn't incompetence, but short-sighted self-preservation. After all, marching toward a more global economy is clearly beneficial for those members of the economic upper class; precisely the people producing your reports (btw: please link, so we can all have the underlying data). Bias exists, consciously or otherwise, so naturally such people will shade interpretation of data one way or another. It isn't crass; merely human.

Lastly, to move in a different direction: I've been contemplating the parallels between the present-day EU and a post-Revolution-but-pre-Constitution United States (under the Articles of Confederation). In both cases, the government structures were explicitly created to maintain the sovereignty of member states, necessarily limiting the power and reach of the centralized government (or, in the case of the EU, government-like structures).

To my view, at least, an understanding of why these structures lacked cohesion (in the case of the US, it was an inability to collect taxes and pay for a central government as well as the lack of effective executive and judicial structures within the central government) would help inform better structures for the future.

I have to admit that a well-integrated European economy is first on my list of "threats" to American economic hegemony (yes, above China, at least for now), so I'm curious as to any thoughts for why a European citizen would want to remain separated, rather than more tightly integrated.

You would have had to have followed events pre-referendum to understand the forces at work. I'm not saying the Brexit camp were 'whiter-than-white' re. skulduggery btw, they weren't, but the bulk of the misinformation and fear was clearly coming from remainers and they had the weight of the establishment machinery behind them, pulling the strings. It wasn't a fair fight and they still lost, funnily enough.Scrutiny of hysterical estimates & statements made by experts such as EU bodies, OECD, IMF, UK GOV, BoE are all out there, you should be aware of them already. This is not me arguing a contentious issue, they were all gloomy as hell and they were for the period after the referendum but before leaving. If the EU was simply a good trading area and co-operated sensibly on security and crime then I doubt there would even be an issue.

You would have had to have followed events pre-referendum to understand the forces at work. I'm not saying the Brexit camp were 'whiter-than-white' re. skulduggery btw, they weren't, but the bulk of the misinformation and fear was clearly coming from remainers and they had the weight of the establishment machinery behind them, pulling the strings. It wasn't a fair fight and they still lost, funnily enough.Scrutiny of hysterical estimates & statements made by experts such as EU bodies, OECD, IMF, UK GOV, BoE are all out there, you should be aware of them already. This is not me arguing a contentious issue, they were all gloomy as hell and they were for the period after the referendum but before leaving. If the EU was simply a good trading area and co-operated sensibly on security and crime then I doubt there would even be an issue.

So, you are making a non-contentious point to a group of necessarily ignorant persons (we didn't follow the events pre-referendum), repeatedly (come back to this thread multiple times), won't answer a simple question for evidence (I should be aware of them already, but couldn't understand them because I didn't pay attention pre-referendum to the forces that were at work?)

And your last line barely answers the question I asked, with a facile tautology boiling down to "if it were better, it would work."

Why, then, are you posting? It's not to convince those that disagree(d) with you, since you are simply restating you think you were/are right. Do you really need to gloat that badly? I get the title of the Thread is presumptuous (assumes everyone is frustrated with the outcome), but self-aggrandizement in the face of arrogant presumption accomplishes little (and, frankly, self-satisfaction, as any clichéd flasher-in-a-trenchcoat will tell you, shouldn't really be a public thing).

I'll admit my own frustration with the tone of conversation in this Thread, but as I'm genuinely curious to understand the underlying point (UK people are better without the EU), let's try to open discussion again:

How would you make the EU better? If the concept of the EU is necessarily flawed, what are the underlying faults?

What are the priorities or structures that should be in place for any government and why do you believe in those priorities?

How do we, the governed, maintain checks on those in power, both hard (military, physical) and soft (economic, class-oriented or hierarchical), either in the UK or in the EU (or really, anywhere)?

How large should a sovereign government be? For that matter, how do we determine large: geography, population, economy?

Seriously, I want to understand the vote to Leave without resorting to facile "down with the Other" explanations. I think it's contemptuous to simply say "bunch of ignorant something-ist Neanderthals" rather than try to understand why someone might believe in additional protections to sovereignty. If people are dis-empowered and dis-affected, we, as a society (globally), should understand why and attempt to help.

I just haven't heard any explanations that aren't "down with the Other." And yes, when that is the underlying reason for something, I will be contemptuous (to answer the follow-up question: yes, I tend to be self-loathing at times, when my own such flaws are laid bare before me).

--------------------

I used to stay out late and try to walk the Muse home. Now I get up fresh-faced at 7 a.m. and take advantage of her while she's passing out.-Bono

If people are dis-empowered and dis-affected, we, as a society (globally), should understand why and attempt to help.

"The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s."

"The Secretary of the Writers' UnionHad leaflets distributed in the StalinalleeStating that the peopleHad forfeited the confidence of the governmentAnd could win it back onlyBy redoubled efforts. Would it not be easierIn that case for the governmentTo dissolve the peopleAnd elect another?"

Bertolt Brecht

--------------------

If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.

Group: Members
Posts: 24,508
Joined: 23-August 13
From: The North
Member No.: 44,432

"So, you are making a non-contentious point to a group of necessarily ignorant persons (we didn't follow the events pre-referendum), repeatedly (come back to this thread multiple times), won't answer a simple question for evidence (I should be aware of them already, but couldn't understand them because I didn't pay attention pre-referendum to the forces that were at work?)"

No, I am making the point to you and you only. If you are ignorant of pre-referendum predictions it won't take you long to find out (hint... Project Fear), you appear fairly intelligent. I don't have to spoon feed you do I? Maybe ploughing into a topic which you haven't a bloody clue about and then having a go at me is perhaps a tad unwise?

"And your last line barely answers the question I asked, with a facile tautology boiling down to "if it were better, it would work.""

Not quite, I'll help you. If the EU wasn't a pernicious, mission-creep political union there wouldn't be an issue.

"Why, then, are you posting? It's not to convince those that disagree(d) with you, since you are simply restating you think you were/are right. Do you really need to gloat that badly? I get the title of the Thread is presumptuous (assumes everyone is frustrated with the outcome), but self-aggrandizement in the face of arrogant presumption accomplishes little (and, frankly, self-satisfaction, as any clichéd flasher-in-a-trenchcoat will tell you, shouldn't really be a public thing)."

Go away, do your homework and then come back mate. Oh there's more... we'll call this next bit Part 1 shall we? The Crux? The above bits were just the warm-up.

"I'll admit my own frustration with the tone of conversation in this Thread, but as I'm genuinely curious to understand the underlying point (UK people are better without the EU), let's try to open discussion again:"

Let's have a go then....

"How would you make the EU better? If the concept of the EU is necessarily flawed, what are the underlying faults?What are the priorities or structures that should be in place for any government and why do you believe in those priorities?"

It should be a free-trade area and co-operate on security & crime only. I have told you this before, do you even read what I say?

"How do we, the governed, maintain checks on those in power, both hard (military, physical) and soft (economic, class-oriented or hierarchical), either in the UK or in the EU (or really, anywhere)?"

We vote in elections.

"How large should a sovereign government be? For that matter, how do we determine large: geography, population, economy?"

It should be national. These are too easy mate.

"Seriously, I want to understand the vote to Leave without resorting to facile "down with the Other" explanations. I think it's contemptuous to simply say "bunch of ignorant something-ist Neanderthals" rather than try to understand why someone might believe in additional protections to sovereignty. If people are dis-empowered and dis-affected, we, as a society (globally), should understand why and attempt to help."

Are you getting it yet?

"I just haven't heard any explanations that aren't "down with the Other." And yes, when that is the underlying reason for something, I will be contemptuous (to answer the follow-up question: yes, I tend to be self-loathing at times, when my own such flaws are laid bare before me)."